\chapter{Analysis}
\label{chap:analysis}

The purpose of this analysis is to systematically go through the presented secondary data and use it to extract the information from our primary data that can lead to an answer to our research question. The secondary data can help us to find value in our interviews and help us to structure the initial information chaos. \bigskip

\noindent We will initiate our analysis with an outline of our current standpoint in section \ref{sec:preliminary}. We will give a summary of how we understand our subject matter so far. This will provide the reader an understanding of the basis of our analysis and recapitulate the most important thoughts of our research till now. Our grounded theory approach requires us to communicate clearly about our findings and how we constantly develop new knowledge.

In section \ref{sec:interviewevaluation} we will give a small evaluation of the interviews. It is important to elaborate on the validity of the interviewees and evaluate to which extent we used the interview guide.

The findings of our analysis will be presented in section \ref{sec:findings}. The structure of this section will follow a certain path of a meaning condensation based on the secondary and primary data.

The product of this analysis will be presented in section \ref{sec:modelframework}. According to our research question we strive to come up with a conceptual normative model for establishing collective open data maturity in a smart city which we have considered necessary for sustainable open data initiatives to evolve. Here it will be revealed to which extend we are able to answer our research question. We will provide elaborations on our findings and widen up to a broader discussion in chapter \ref{chap:discussion}. Here we allow ourselves to induce new theory if possible and discuss where our grounded theory approach has led us.

The last part of our analysis will be a short elaboration on the outcome of this whole chapter; how the conceptual model incorporates the ideas of the primary and secondary data and corresponds to our research question. In chapter \ref{chap:discussion} we will go more into a discussion of how further research can enhance its validity and usability.

\subsubsection*{Using grounded theory in our analysis}
\label{subsubsec:usinggroundedtheory}
We have put a great emphasis on our use of grounded theory so far. In the methodology, subsection \ref{subsec:methoddecisions}, we have outlined basic grounded theory literature by \cite{CORBIN} saying that grounded theory researchers are interested in patterns of action between and among various types of social units. Our primary data holds information about these patterns of action among various types of social units and a great portion of value is to be unveiled from these interviews partly by means of our secondary data. The article \textit{``Guiding the Use of Grounded Theory in Doctoral Studies''} by \cite{JONES} explains more concretely how to extract this value obtained using grounded theory. They write that \textit{``grounded theory offers many benefits to research in Information Systems as it is suitable for the investigation of complex multifaceted phenomena. It is also well equipped to explore socially related issues''} \citep[p. 95]{JONES}. \bigskip

\noindent \cite{JONES} explain the differences between \textit{Glaserian} and \textit{Stra\-ussian} grounded theory. We have presented the ideas of Anselm Strauss before and in this article, the Straussian grounded theory approach is condensed down to these points (an extract) \citep[p. 99]{JONES}

\begin{itemize}

\item Having a general idea of where to begin.
\item Forcing the theory, with structured questions.
\item Conceptual description (description of situations).
\item The theory is interpreted by an observer.
\item The credibility of the theory comes from the rigour of the method.
\item Basic social processes need not be identified.
\item The researcher is active.
\item Data is structured to reveal the theory.

\end{itemize}

\noindent We follow these points quite accurately. In this chapter we focus on the last item of the Straussian grounded theory. One can say that in section \ref{sec:findings} we do selective coding where core categories become apparent.

\begin{quote}
\textit{``A core category is a category that has developed through densification and that explains most of the variation which represents the participants' major concern. It should relate meaningfully and easily to other categories.''} \cite[p. 107]{JONES}
\end{quote}

\noindent In section \ref{sec:modelframework} we condense the selective coding and do \textit{theoretical coding}. We argue that our seven interviews constitute a richly saturated research field and that allows us to draw conclusions from the data collection and the selective coding \citep[p. 107]{JONES}:

\begin{quote}
\textit{``Theoretical coding knits the fractures pieces back together again to conceptualize causal relationships between the hypotheses derived through open and selective coding. [...]. The final result is a model depicting the basic social process [that] reflect and summarize the patterns of behavior which are fundamental to the phenomena.''} \cite[p. 108-109]{JONES}
\end{quote}

